the know how fund: the early years
DESCRIPTION
This paper examines the early years of the 'Know How Fund', Britain’s bilateral technical assistance programme in post-communist central and eastern Europe.TRANSCRIPT
THE KNOW HOW FUND
THE EARLY YEARS
Keith Hamilton
The Sovietisation of eastern Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War was as
much an economic as a political accomplishment. Communist command economies,
divorced from free market mechanisms, were imposed upon countries whose
economic and social structures the Soviet Union sought to integrate with its own.
Existing administrative, commercial and legal institutions were meanwhile either
destroyed or adapted to suit the needs of party and ideology. With the Red Army in
occupation of most of Europe east of the Elbe, British diplomats were rarely able to
do more than speculate about Soviet intentions and protest when the principles
enunciated at Yalta were flouted or ignored. In a paper of 12 March 1946, detailing
the way in which the Russians were remoulding the economies of the lands they
occupied, John Coulson of the Foreign Oftice's Economic Relations Department
argued that Britain had few if any means with which to counter this process. The best
we can do', he concluded, 'is to hold the door open- or to hold enough doors open
for the East Europeans to catch frequent glimpses of a more attractive and more
prosperous world in the West and to be encouraged, when the occasion offers, to pass
through.'
The idea that the East European satellites could, or would, eventually be
drawn away from Moscow's grip by the magnetism inherent in the economic strength
of the Western system was one that was to surface time and again in British
diplomatic thinking during the next forty years. There were occasions, as in the mid-
1970s, when British officials found cause to doubt the validity of this assumption. The
oil crisis of 1973, the onset of recession, the advance of communism in Portugal and
southern Africa, and progress towards detente in Europe, led some to wonder whether
the Iron Curtain would disintegrate, not as the result of capitalist corrosion, but under
the deadweight of a collectivist consensus. It seemed possible that the East/West
1
divide might be rendered irrelevant by one side's drift toward economic dirigisme
and the other's need to respond to th requirements of mark t force . evertheless,
during the 1980s the all too apparent hortcoming of of the command conomies of
the East, their failure to adjust to the challenge of the n w techn 1 gies, the birth of
popular reformist movements in central and eastern Europe and the initiation of
perestroika in the Soviet Union led to there-em rg nc in Whitehall of the notion of
the West as a pole of attraction which must exert a p werful pull up n di sidents and
opponents of the existing communi t governm n . The am d vel prnents also
persuaded the British government to endor more proactiv p licie aimed
specifically at fostering a creative ferment which, it was anticipat d w uld gradually
undermine the Sovi t sy tern in astern Europ . Thi , in practic , m ant enc uraging
economic and political reform in individual c untri whil h lding ut th pr pect
of Western assistance if that were achieved.
Responding to Reform in Poland
Rarely was the policy mad m r xplicit than wh n th Prim Mini t r, Margaret
Thatcher, vi ited War aw in arly ovemb r 19 8. Th pr vi u umm r had n a
politically turbulent on in P land, in which a min r h d n f 11 w d by
consultation between th g v rnm nt and w nd th f rmati n f a
new reformi t cabin t. And during h r vi it th Prim Mini t r d th
emphasise the need for political chang if ec n mic r f rm wer t hav a hanc f
succeeding. She declared publicly that mmitm nt, the
resolve and the per verenc to break thr ugh to uc , their fri nd w uld r ady
to help in practical way : by upporting an IMF ref rm pr gramm ; by f£ ring
credits; by re ch duling debts~ by backing inv tm nt; by stabli hing j int v ntur ;
and by increasing contac of v ry rt b twe n gov mm nt and p pl . Th
message was clear and it became increa ingly r levant to Poland' ituation as the
refonn process gathered pace during the winter of 1988-89. Round tabl talks began
between the government and its opponents in February, and th r suited in the re
legalisation of the previously outlawed Solidarity movement, and the announcement,
2
early in April, of both wide-ranging economic reforms and the holding of elections in
which 35% of the seats were to be freely contested. Meanwhile, the Poles, like other
east European peoples, had to contend with a slowdown in growth, a convertible
currency crisis, shortages and imbalances in the production and supply of goods, and
serious environmental problems.
The Polish authorities evidently anticipated that once they had demonstrated
their reforming zeal they would be able to secure financial assistance from the West,
especially, they hoped, agreement on the rescheduling and reduction of their
enormous foreign debts. They were already negotiating with the IMP and the United
States wasted no time in offering aid. Nevetheless, in the absence of an agreed IMP
programme with its probable restrictions on Polish government-spending, neither the
British government nor its European partners were enthusiastic about providing the
Poles with the substantial financial assistance they desired. The Poles had recently
adopted measures to encourage foreign investment and joint capital ventures, but they
had hardly begun to tackle underlying problems of macro-economic adjustment. Real
incomes were still high, there was a growing budget deficit, and there was no end in
sight to subsidisation and high int1ation. Western credits had in the past seemed
simply to contribute to Poland's overall indebtedness without effecting any
improvement in Poland's government. Moreover, given the fact that the communists
and their allies had been assigned a majority of the seats in the forthcoming election,
there was good reason to think that the Chairman of the Council of State, General
Jaruzelski, would retain his hold on power.
There was, however, a strong desire in Whitehall to make some kind of
gesture to the Poles which would reassure them of continuing British support for their
reforming policies. No. 10 and FCO ministers wanted Britain to be able to build on
links already established with the refonn movement in Poland: there was a wish to see
Britain take the lead and not be outpaced by other Western powers. Quite what might
be done for Poland had already been discussed at a seminar which the PCO's Eastern
European Department hosted on 21 March 1989. Its participants, who included
3
academics, publicists, parliamentarians and representatives of other Whitehall
departments, recognised that without a massive financial injection the West's scope
for promoting reform was limited. They also accepted that while eastern Europe was
in many respects peripheral to British interests, the West as a whole had an interest in
the long-term stability of the area. And with this in mind, it was suggested that the
British government might look at the provision of legal and political expertise with a
view to helping the establishment of proper democratic structures. The idea was
considered a good one and officials soon began elaborating on it. If Britain were
going to help foster politicalliberalisation and economic efficiency in eastern Europe,
then there was evidently much to be said for trying to transfer there British expertise
over a whole range of subjects. These, it was thought, might include the establishment
and running of political parties and election campaigns, parliamentary institutions and
procedures, the workings of an upper house, the rule of law and the functioning of an
independent judiciary, and arbitration in industrial disputes. Overall, the aim would be
to target British efforts in this area better so as to maximise their contribution to the
democratic development of eastern Europe.
The Genesis of the Fund
The emphasis at this stage was still upon the transfer of essentially political and legal
skills. But during her visit to Warsaw the Prime Minister had offered the Poles British
expertise in a distinctly non-political sector: she had proposed that the British might
assist them with management training. There was nothing that was particularly novel
about this idea. An International Management Centre, supported largely by corporate
and private · finance, already existed in Budapest, and the British Council had
commissioned a report on how the British might help the Poles with management
training and education. The report, prepared by a specialist in management studies,
recommended, among other things, the establishment within the DTI of a 'British
Polish Productivity Agency', which would act as a clearing house for requests from
Poland for help and assistance, arrange for visits by Polish managers to the UK and
encourage a flow of information and joint business ventures. British diplomats in
4
Poland readily embraced the notion of Britain assisting the Poles in this sphere. If the
Poles were going to shift towards a market-oriented economy, they would need to
know more about market economics in general. It .seemed therefore to make sense to
invite leading Poles to attend seminars on banking and the stock exchange and,
whenever possible, to encourage British universities to develop appropriate courses
for east Europeans. Diplomats, who had long grown accustomed to having to adapt
their practices to the latest philosophy of management, now found in the prosepective
export of management theory a convenient means to the achievement of a diplomatic
end.
More important, perhaps, was the fact that the idea also seemed to appeal to
the Poles who suggested that Britain might be interested in financing a management
school in Poland. Such a project would have the virtue that it would be visible both in
Poland and Britain: it weuld be a major contribution to reform and an eye-catching
venture. But FCO officials were already considering a broader-based scheme, a
package which would bring together elements of all the proposals so far made for
assisting the Poles. They had to bear in mind that Jaruzelski was due to visit London
in June and that the Prime Minister would want to be able to offer him something.
They were also still awaiting agreement on an IMF economic adjustment programme
which would open the way for further international financial assistance for Poland. In
these circumstances, at the end of April 1989, the East European Department
proposed the establishment of what was termed a Know How Fund (KHF) for Poland
which would be able to promote the transfer of expertise in all areas. As originally
conceived, it was to be activated by encouraging professional bodies and other non
governmental organisations to cooperate with the Poles in relevant areas - an
important point since this would he a means of stimulating further change without
appearing to underpin Poland's communist government. The Fund would thus help
finance the work of British management consultants in Poland, as well as such
individuals and institutions who could provide the Poles with advice and assistance on
a wide range of administrative, business, educational, financial, legal, media and
5
political matters. This was intended to be far more than just a sop for the financial
help the Poles were seeking; the KHF went beyond ge ture and sound-bite diplomacy.
There could, after all, be no privatisations in Poland without company law, without
bankruptcy procedures, and without accountant and auditor . Capitalism, like
democracy, required a legal and institutional framework.
Funding Know How
Before any further decisions could be taken on th po ibl c p of the Fund,
agreement had to be reached both on its ize and from wh r it hould c me. It was
eventually settled that Jaruzelski would be told that th Briti h g v mm nt would be
ready to contribute £5 million a year over live year to a KHF. Th fir t tranche of
this was to be met from the Trea ury' c nting ncy re rv . But the FCO was
entering uncharted waters: the Ea t Eur p an D partm nt had littl idea f how the
Fund might be admini tered, only the br ad t n ti n f what pr j ct might be
financed, and no experience of im plem nting a maj r aid pr ramm . R p n ibility
for managing such programme lay not with th ' Dipl matic Wing, but with its
other half, the Overseas Development Admini trati n A) . It, h w v r, was
primarily concerned with developmental pr j ct in th Third W rld. Th r cipi nts
of its aid were developing, low income c untrie , in many c larg ly agricultural
with a limited industrial base. They ould n t a ily b uat d with P land, which
had relatively good physical and human re ourc b . And th f u f Know How
diplomacy would be mor transfonnati nal than d v 1 pm ntal: i
with assisting an over-indu triali ed ex-communi t untry t mod mi e i economy
and help its industry to learn to operate a fr mark t conomy. N v rth l , it was
also apparent that when it came to dealing with con ultants, drafting contracts and
evaluating and monitoring projects, the ODA had kill and xp ri nc which few in
the Office's Diplomatic Wing po ses ed.
Moreover, there were budgetary rea n f r eeking t involv the ODA at an
early stage in Know How work. The £25 million all cat d to th Fund for P land was
initially seen as additional to the Diplomatic Wing v te : th Office' already
6
overstretched diplomatic budget was not required to cover anything more than the
staffing of the Fund's skeletal administration. But even before 10 June, the day on
which the Prime Minister informed J aruzelski of the establishment of the Fund, it was
evident that other reforming governments in east-central Europe were, or would be,
looking for similar asistance. The Hungarians were an obvious example. They had
long since begun to liberalise their economy and were due to hold free parliamentary
elections. Indeed, in the eyes of some they presented a more deserving case than the
Poles, and it was cetainly going to be very difficult to justify aid to the latter without
giving some consideration to the former. Added to this, Polish politics took an
unexpected turn. The elections did not produce a communist-led coalition
government. Voters chose to strike off the names of communist candidates, with the
result that opposition parties received what amounted to an overwhelming public vote
of confidence and this led eventually to the formation of a new government under the
leadership of the former Solidarity activist, Tadeuz Mazowiecki. The British
government wanted to endorse this triumph of democracy, and during the autumn of
1989 officials in Whitehall began to discuss, not only the extension of funding to
Hungary, but also the possible doubling of the Fund for Poland. Given the sums
involved and the nature of the work, it seemed expedient to shift the bulk of future
funding onto an enhanced ODA aid budget. The money involved would be additional
to what was already being expended on developing countries, and the essentially
political work of the fund would remain the financial responsbility of the Diplomatic
Wing. Early in the autumn of 1989 it was agreed that £25 million should be allocated
to a Fund for Hungary, though this would not become operative until the following
April and, as in the case of Poland, it would be spread over a five year period. Later in
the year, during a visit by Lech Walesa to London, the doubling of the Polish fund to
£50 million was formally announced.
Administering the KHF
This expansion of funding and the need felt by diplomats for ODA advice and
assistance on aid management led in turn to administrative changes. During the
7
summer of 1989 the fund was effectively run by the East European Department. Its
staff very often had to improvise in order to cope with a seemingly endless stream of
enquiries from prospective recipients of Know How Funding. They had also to
concentrate on projects which could be got off the ground quickly so as to avoid any
significant underspend by the end of the financial year. Some of these were run in
conjunction with companies and other outside organisations which approached the
Office with proposals soon after the announcement of the fund; others were managed
by the British Council. The latter were experienced in handling such work on a
contract basis for government departments and agencies and in August 1989 they
agreed, initially on the basis of a gentlemen's agreement, to take over a list of
projects. The Council already had many of these on the tocks and orne, which were
part of an existing management training programme, could go ah ad a on as
finance was available. As a result, while the Office hoped eventually t redres the
balance by including more political schemes, the li t was initially w ighted heavily
on the side of management and bu ine activitie . By the mid-autumn f 1989 s me
fifty projects were underway.
Meanwhile, thought was given a to how the Fund might b t be managed. At
first, it was as umed that a small unit might b t up within th Ea t rn European
Department specifically for thi purpo . But th pot ntial workload f such a unit
was grossly underestimated. One suggestion, for in tance, wa that th Fund could be
run by a senior or retired diplomat with the aid of a p r onal a i tant - a rt of one
man and a dog's-body op ration. Indeed, when in Oct b r it w finally ttl d that
the Diplomatic Wing would share respon ihlity for the Fund with th ODA, the Joint
Assistance Unit (JAU), which they e tahli hed for its admini trati n, was barely less
rudimentary. It was headed by former research offic r with a per nal a i tant and an
ODA official as his deputy. Two official and a seer tary were thus left to manage a
Fund whose remit was to provide advice and expertise and facilitate the transfer of
knowledge and skills from Britain to Poland, and sub equ ntly Hungary, in order to
enable them to make progress towards democracy and a market economy. Their
8
programme might include the provision of small amounts of capital equipment where
this appeared essential to make a success of any given scheme. At the same time, they
had to take account of a newly-established Advisory Board: a body, chaired by an
FCO minister, and composed of MPs from each of the three main parties, five
representatives of the worlds of business and finance, two journalists, an academic, a
trade unionist and a representative of the Conservative Council for Eastern Europe. In
addition to providing advice, this was intended to give political cover and protection
to the Fund.
By the time of the Advisory Board's first meeting on 16 November 1989, the
Office in general and the JAU in particular were already coming under considerable
public pressure to do more for Poland. The former Prussian province of Silesia is
probably best remembered by most students of modem history for Frederick the
Great's campaigns and the plebiscite of 1921 But in the autumn of 1989 the BBC
discovered in the Oder basin an environmental disaster of the first order, and, judging
from the FCO files, the British public awoke, like Maria Theres~ to find Silesia
inscribed upon their hearts. The media demanded aid for Poland, and those who were
in the know looked to the Know How Fund to provide it. Located in one room, the
three members of the JAU were soon having to deal with between sixty and eighty
telephone calls a day, and by the end of November, when they were still trying to
develop and define a strategy for handling proposals and requests, pulling the plugs
on telecom became not so much an option as a necessity. Meanwhile, on 29
November, the F reign and Commonwealth Secretary, Douglas Hurd, formally
announced the doubling of the Fund for Poland and the commitment of a further £15
million to assi tin the improvement of Polish food supplies.
Expansion and Extension
By the time of this announcement, it was quite clear that countries other than Poland
and Hungary would soon be in a position to assert a moral claim for Know How
Funding. The demolition of the Berlin Wall raised the prospect of a reformed East
Germany seeking British aid, and events in Germany had their impact upon
9
Czechoslovakia, a land which until recently had been judged reformable but not yet
reforming. If, however, funding were to be extended to Czechoslovakia and the
former GDR, the FCO would have to negotiate new arrangements with the Treasury.
The Office would have liked to have settled on a large global figure for the Fund, say
£150 million, which could be allocated as the JAU saw fit. At the same time officials
were keen to ensure that the extension of funding should not place new demands upon
existing FCO budgets. The FCO was already facing up to the prospect of having to
expand existing missions in eastern Europe and possibly even to open new ones, and
it was aware that there would be strong public opposition to any move which might
imply cutbacks in the existing overseas aid programme. M n y intended for the
developing countries of Africa and Asia could not be chan lied t a fund intended to
assist the relatively prosperous peoples of east-central Eur p . In the end, in January
1990, the Treasury agreed to release a further £10 milli n from th Re erve, and
assented to arrangements whereby the FC would b abl t xt nd funding to
individual countries according to their commitment to r form. It wa still, however,
necessary to gain Treasury consent in ach in tance, and bud tary limitations
remained a persistent problem for Fund manager . G v rnm nt Minist rs w r also
frustrated and irritated by their inability to as ume th 1 ading r 1 to which they
aspired in the de-Sovietisation of the East. They wer only to w 11 awar that fine
words were no substitute for financial tr ngth wh n it cam t practising
transfonnational diplomacy.
Margaret Thatcher used the visit to London of the C cho lovak President,
Vaclav Havel, on 21-22 March 1990, and an Anglo-G rman ummit, om nine days
later, to announce the extension of funding to Czecho lovakia and East G rmany. In
the case of the latter country money was u d largely to promot English language
training and disbursement ended after German unification. But in th spring of 1990 it
seemed quite possible that at some point in th not too distant futur Bulgaria,
Romania and Yugoslavia would all qualify for a istanc . It wa ven po ible that
reform in the Soviet Union would lead to funding being extend d furth r eastwards.
10
And to meet the prospect of an ever-extending Fund the JAU evolved the principle of
differentiation whereby the type and degree of aid was supposed to match the stage of
reform reached by each country. Country-specific priorities were developed along
with country strategy papers, which were given Whitehall circulation, and a number
of sectoral reconnaisance missions were financed with a view to identifying key areas
for assistance. These covered several broad areas: banking, finance, accountancy and
privatisation; employment issues, such as the setting up of social welfare networks,
the retraining of those made redundant, and the stimulation of small businesses;
management training; English language training; and 'political' projects, such as
assistance to parliaments and training courses for journalists. And within these areas
the JAU established principles to guide its intervention. It thus sought to concentrate
on activities which would: (1) energise the private sector and, wherever possible, have
a catalytic effect; (2) be based in east-central Europe; (3) deal with the training of
trainers; (4) develop sustainable links between British and east European institutions;
and (5) be well publicisable - it was always regarded as politically important that the
fund should be highly visible in its activities.
Mandarins, Management and Manpower
Funding on this basis could not be administered on the two men and a P A principle
established in the autumn. Aid budgets are notoriously labour intensive with
administrative costs estimated variously at 2-3% of programmes. And Know How
diplomacy was no exception. The very nature of the work, which involved funding
numerous relatively small projects, meant that manpower costs per project must be
high, and this was evident in the rapid expansion of J AU staffing in the winter and
spring of 1990. By the end of the year the unit had a staff of twenty-three drawn from
both the Diplomatic Wing and the ODA, and organised on a country, rather than
sectoral, basis. This was a structure which allowed for the co-ordination of Know
How work so as to meet the differing national needs of post-communist societies. It
also complemented efforts to maximise the Fund's impact by the targeting of
activities which would serve as a stimulus to further change and help provide an
11
enabling framework for the transition to liberal democracy and capitalism. After all,
the JAU could not afford simply to await and evaluate proposals. Nor could it wholly
neglect the desire of other Whitehall Departments, particularly the Departments of
Employment and the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
(MAFF) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), to have a say in how the
Fund was managed and applied.
Ministers from home-based Departments were eager to become involved, and
their efforts soon impinged upon the fund's multifarious activities. The Department of
Employment, for instance, mounted a series of reconnaissance missions, and these
were followed by ministerial visits to Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
Memoranda of understanding were concluded with local ministries of labour, and
these subsequently formed the basis of Know How Funding in the employment sector.
The MAFF took the lead in dealing with the Poles on the proferred £15 million grant
to assist Polish food supplies, and the Department of the Environment attempted to do
its bit for local government. The DTI posed a more difficult problem. It had a
particular brief for British manufacturing industry and naturally tended to see in the
Fund an opportunity to develop commercial and investment links between British
industry and and east-central Europe. If Fund projects were to involve the
employment of British consultancies then there seemed every reason to suppose that
such links might lead to further and possibly more advantageous contacts and
contracts. And it was partly with a view to satisfying the DTI that the JAU devised
two commercially-oriented schemes to encourage British investment in eastern
Europe. One offered to cover 50% of the costs of pre-investment feasibility studies,
and the other aimed at funding the training of a limited number of key potential east
European venture partners. Meanwhile, in April 1990, a DTI official was seconded to
the JAU to administer the schemes: a move which increased contact between the two
Departments and probably encouraged a greater understanding of the ways in which
the JAU's efforts to reform the economic and financial infrastructure of eastern
Europe could in itself bene tit British industry.
12
Putting Principles into Practice
The involvement of other Whitehall Departments could, of course, be paticularly
valuable when it came to spotting potential projects. One of the problems that British
diplomats faced in 1989 and 1990 was that of identifying and prioritising the needs of
recipient countries. Very often they found themselves ventriloquising the
requirements of peoples who had no previous experience of democratic politics or
market economics. What new skills, for instance, would a privatised Polish banking
system need? Some of the early projects were clearly designed to provide answers to
such questions. In September and October 1989 the FCO sponsored conferences in
London and Warsaw which were specifically designed to examine how British
expertise could best be used to assist the Poles economically and politically. But the
JAU also had supply-side problems. Projects aimed at commercial and industrial
restructuring were bound to involve considerable sums of public money and some
would have to be put out to tender. This, in tum, meant delays in awarding contracts
and almost inevitably complaints from firms and other institutions whose projects
were not accepted as quickly as they would have wished. In this context the JAU was
also anxious to avoid duplicating the work of other technical assistance programmes.
The KHF was a front runner in Poland and in a good position to initiate projects in
some sectors, but in Hungary, Czechslovakia and, subsequently, the Balkans, it was
increasingly necessary to take account of the work of the EC's PHARE programme,
and the bilateral assistance being delivered by other Western powers.
Know How Funding was also to some extent dependent upon the readiness of
governments of recipient countries to maintain the pace of their reform programmes.
British assistance was not being given on a government to government basis, but,
quite clearly, a consultancy project aimed at providing advice on privatisation could
make little progress if governments were reluctant or tardy in proceeding with
privatisation legislation. Likewise, there was little point in offering advice on
industrial restructuring if state enterprises were simply transferred to the private sector
without any prospect of a change in management. In these respects, Know How
13
Funding was likely to he more successful in those countries that opted for a radical,
rather than a gradualist, approach to economic change. Nevertheless, there was almost
everywhere in reforming eastern Europe, scope for relatively small projects relating to
public administration, education, the media, management training and the law. Within
the frrst month of the Fund's operations in Hungary, in April 199 , the British Council
had organised a study tour of British management training institutions, and was
preparing plans for a consultancy mission in univer ity finance and con ultancy
advice on the revision of the political science curriculum of Hungarian universities.
The opportunity for East Europeans to gain first hand experi nc of Western
management techniques, through short-term attachment to Briti h c mpanies, was
also provided by the pilot Joint Industrial and Commercial Award Programme
(llCAP), which the Fund launched in Poland.
The project a joint programme developed by th Confed ration f British
Industry and the British Council, sought both to improv Polish und r tanding of
industrial and commercial organisations within a fr mark t and t give Poles
practical experience of market-oriented institution in Britain. A total of tw nty-one
middle-ranking Polish managers were placed for eight w ks with Briti h c mpanies
at an average cost of £4,000 per candidate. Efforts wer mad to match candidate to
finns according to business sectors and common intere ts, and a num r of c mpanies
offered formal training as well as 'on the job' practice to participan . Lat r, wh n the
project was reviewed by outside evaluators, respon from participan indicated that
they all felt they had a clearer gra p of the working of a mark t c n my and there
was evidence that improvements had been achieved in their manag rial xp rti . It
was also recommended that the programme should be extend d to cover all branches
of the economy including profes ional bodies, and JICAP i now e tabli hed as a
'regional' (i.e. multi-country) scheme with placements for managers from all the KHF
recipient countries now totalling over 1000.
14
Flagship Projects
Even, however, before the Fund was fully established there was a hankering on the
part of Ministers and officials for the sponsoring of larger scale projects, and for the
concentration of resources in specitic sectors and in particular localities. One
suggestion made in 1990 was that the JAU might take a town in Hungary and apply
British expertise over a whole range of local government services, and town-twinning
projects aimed at extending some British local government practices to eastern
Europe have since become a common feature in KHF country programmes. There
were obvious advantages to be derived from engaging the Fund in big flagship
projects. Not least of these was the fact that this would be high profile work. The
Fund, the FCO and Britain would be seen to be doing something positive in east
central Europe. Highly visible projects were, however, also likely to be highly risky
ones, and this was apparent in three comparatively successful ventures which the
Fund helped sponsor, notably the Katowice Banking School, the Budapest Stock
Exchange and the Czechoslovak privatisation scheme.
The first of these, the Katowice Banking School, represented an endeavour to
assist the banking sector in Poland by drawing upon the undoubted expertise of the
City of London in financial services. Poland's need was clearly identified and this was
an area in which Britain had a comparative advantage. The British Council conducted
surveys of the training and development requirements of Polish banks and their
employees, and in July 1991 the JAU participated, along with British and French
banking institutions, in a technical aid programme concentrated upon the newly
fonned Katowice Banking School. The Fund was used to pay for the supply of British
bank trainers and over a period of three years something like £1.4 million was spent
on the project. A large number of junior and middle management bank employees
were able to take advantage of short-term residential courses at the school and 2,000
of these received British financial assistance. Yet the school's training was by local
standards expensive to deliver, some courses failed to address issues directly relevant
to the occupational requirements of trainees and the recently-privatised Polish banks
15
were evidently still uncertain of the skills required by their personnel. Moreover, the
school, which it had originally been hoped to make the apex of professional banking
education in Poland, soon had to reckon with significant competitors in the shape of
the German-sponsored Gdansk Banking Academy and the American-funded Warsaw
Institute of Banking. Its location in Upper Silesia, some three hours train journey from
Warsaw, was also far from ideal and led some to wonder whether it could ever aspire
to be anything more than a regional, as opposed to national, centre of excellence.
An equally prestigious enterprise in which the Fund was to become involved
was the Budapest Stock Exchange. One of the largest single projects assisted by the
fund in Hungary, it aimed at aiding with the design, appraisal and implementation of a
new trading floor. PHARE agreed in principle to finance the new computer hard and
software at a cost roughly equivalent to 32% of the whole project, and over a three
year period the KHF contributed £1.1 million or 23o/o of total costs. In effect the
Hungarians were trying to set up a stock exchange from scratch and in the process the
advice of two British consultancies was sought, if not always followed. The scheme
was completed in 1994 leaving the Hungarians with one of the finest computerised
trading floors in east-central Europe. But Hungarian government forecasts regarding
their privatisation programme - the programme that was to provide the stock to be
traded - had been wildly optimistic. The three-fold expansion of market
capitalisations achieved by 1994 hardly compared with forecasts of a ten-fold increase
between 1990 and 1994. Moreover, by 1994, the capacity of the financial sector in
Hungary to meet the challenges of developing and supporting capital markets was still
uncertain, and there was as yet no adequate regulatory framework for securities issue
and trading. If, however, the trading floor was, on completion, working well below
capacity, it should not be overlooked that the project had done much to promote a
trading culture in Hungary and that there was a symbolic significance in Britain, with
the largest financial market in Europe, being seen to assist the Hungarians with their
stock exchange.
16
British financial expertise was possibly put to better use in Czechslovakia.
There the Know How Fund provided the Czechoslovak, and subsequently Czech and
Slovak, authorities with Consultancy advice on a . mass privatisation scheme. This
involved the registration of individuals at a fee approximately equivalent to average
of one week's earnings, the issue of investment points in the form of vouchers, and
the use of these to purchase shares either directly or through specially organised
investment privatisation funds. Over a two-year period and at a cost to the KHF of
just over £3 million, British Consultancy advice was given firstly to the federal
authorities in Prague and then to the separate Czech and Slovak administrations, and
almost 1,500 enterprises, previously responsible for half Czechoslovakia's GDP, were
transferred to private ownership. It was a high cost, high profile and high risk
operation. The cost of meeting consultancy fees was large when compared with the
total Fund resources available for Czechoslovakia, the project was a key element in
the federal government's plans for liberalising their economy, and it was always
possible that there would be insufficient political and public enthusiasm to sustain
privatisation on the scale originally envisaged. Its chief virtue was that it gave 70% of
the adult population of the former Czechoslovakia the opportunity to share in the
ownership of what had been state assets and, in so doing, encouraged the creation of
capital markets and the development of fund-management expertise in the two
successor republics. Voucher privatisation in Czechoslovakia was an instance when
the JAU managed successfully to combine knowing how with knowing when and
where. It also provided a useful model which other countries of the region could
adopt. Indeed, experience gained in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary was put to
good use when in Know How Funding was extended t1rst to the Soviet Union and
then, early in 1991, to Bulgaria and Romania.
Encouraging Change in the Soviet Republics
Extension eastwards brought new problems, political as well as financial: the British
government wished to work in concert with its partners and allies in enouraging
Gorbachev' s reforms, but was reluctant to offer assistance until the Russians had
17
demonstrated their readiness to adopt the discipline of the market. The Soviet Union
could not in any case be treated like its western neighbours. It was much larger in size
and its pace of reform much slower; it had no tradition of entrepreneurial activity on
which to build; the authorities there seemed to have little understanding of what was
required; popular inertia and bureaucratic obstruction seemed likely to inhibit change;
and some of the constituent republics were moving rapidly towards full independence.
Moveover, in order that a Know How Fund for the Soviet Union should be credible
and bear comparison to what had been offered to other countries, substantial new
money would have to be found in Whitehall, and new personnel recruited to
administer it. Even after the announcement on 15 November 1990 of a £20 million
KHF for the Soviet Union, with disbursement commencing on 1 April and spread
over two years, project implementation was delayed first as the re ult of political
repression in the Baltic republics and then because of the uncertainties g nerated by
the failed coup of August 1991 . Operations were put 'on hold' whilst Ministers
debated the wisdom of seeking to refonn the apparently unreformable. The JAU was
nevertheless already preparing a strategy paper for the USSR, and by July 1991 eight
technical assistance projects had been approved and funds committed, a further eleven
were under appraisal, and money had been earmarked for for financial rvices, small
business and distribution techniques missions intended to identify project work. And
in the following spring a separate JAU (henceforth designated the JAU (E) ) was
established for what had by then become the former Soviet Union (FSU). Soon
afterwards annual Know How Funding was effectively doubled for the Russian
Federation and neighbouring successor states.
The KHF for the former Soviet lands wa from its inception more narrowly
focused than that operating in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In August 1990,
when it was still uncertain whether additional resources would be available for the
Soviet Union, the JAU had proposed a modest programme of technical assistance
concentrated upon a single agreed economic problem, such as the processing, storage
and distribution of key foodstuffs in a given geographical area or constituent republic.
18
The DTI was already meeting half the costs of a consultancy study undertaken by a
British consortium on the food chain in the Ukraine, and wished to involve private
fmance more actively in such Know How work. The Prime Minister similarly
favoured creating conditions which would encourage British ftnns to invest, and other
Whitehall Departments which were eventually persuaded to contribute to the Fund
were inclined to prefer projects in keeping with their administrative mandates. Their
views were to some extent reflected in Douglas Hurd's Parliamentary announcement
of the Fund. He told the Commons that assistance was to be provided to the Soviet
Union 'in close collaboration with the British private sector', and that it would be
targeted at four specific areas: food distribution and agriculture; energy; small
business formation; and financial services.
Project Expansion in the FSU
Amongst the earliest projects considered for funding in the Soviet Union were a
feasibility study for a new Project Finance and Export Development Bank in
Moscow; a plan to help establish a Business Centre in Leningrad (St Petersburg) with
the aid of the Manchester Business School; and a proposal from a British Consultancy
for the provision of wide-scale advice and co-operation it:t the field of energy
efficiency in industry. The Department of Employment also despatched a small
business mi sion to the Soviet Union in July 1991. But the mission's assumption that
project agreements had to be concluded at an All-Union level, and its apparent
tendency to regard the state sector as the medium through which to encourage private
enterprise, drew som criticism from the British embassy at Moscow. The mission
seemed to neglect local requirements and to be guilty of 'old thinking' both in the
British and contemporary Soviet sense. Indeed, at a time when political power was
shifting into the hands of republican leaders and when the Soviet Union was evidently
on the verge of collapse, it appeared to make more sense to channel assistance to its
constituent parts. Early in September 1991, shortly before Moscow's formal
acceptance of their independence, the FCO confirmed that Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania were eligible for Know How Funding. By November fourteen projects with
19
a total estimated cost of £393,200 had been approved for the Baltic states. These, in
many respects, bore more resemblance to those underway in east-central Europe to
those recently envisaged for the Soviet Union. They ranged from an energy audit
mission to Lithuania, casted at £3,500, to short-term scholarships, totalling £120,000,
and aimed at enabling postgraduates and young professionals from all three republics
to study economics, finance and management
Two of the more expensive projects approved for the Baltic states provided for
the short-term attachment of retired senior British diplomats to their foreign ministries
to advise on 'restructuring in a democratic society' (£15,000), and the sending to
Baltic capitals of serving British police officers to advise on police training and
restructuring (£20,000). The former involved visit by John Rich, a former British
ambassador, and Sir Patrick (now Lord) Wright, the recently-retir d PUS, to Tallinn
and Vilnius respectively. The latter was implemented by a Strathclyd police team
which included, during its visit to Riga, a woman police sergeant from Dun table, a
lady who enjoyed the distinction, rare presumably within the Bedfordshire
Constabulary, of being a Latvian-speaker. Both projects were videnc of the
diversity of Know How work and the extent to which it drew upon the talents and
services of a variety of individuals and institutions. It was therefore all the more
appropriate that in his report on the Estonian foreign ministry Rich str ed that no
foreign ministry could in modern times handl all aspects of a country's external
affairs and that there was an international aspect to work of many government
departments. Know How diplomacy, which focused upon encouraging not only
economic and political, but also social, change abroad, was a good an example as
any of the intemationalisation of the domestic.
Elsewhere in the FSU th re was a gradual change in the profile of funding as
support shifted from a large number of relatively small projects towards a more
systematic approach to larger schemes. The JAU (E) was particularly concerned with
developing a project pipeline which would absorb as much as possible of the funding
available during the following framework years, while still leaving the Fund with
20
scope to respond flexibly to fresh contingencies and altered perspectives. It also
remained committed to sponsoring a broad range of politically-oriented work,
including legal, journalistic, civil service and diplomatic training, and wider opinion
changing projects. The British Council-administered Training and Academic Links
(T ACLS) scheme was, for instance, to become busily engaged in promoting co
operation and dialogue between British and FSU higher education and training
institutions. And by 1993 the KHF was providing 50~ of the funding for a BBC
World Service project, aptly named the 'Marshall Plan of the Mind' . A project team,
which included writing consultants, producers and studio manag rs, was set up to
work with staff in Russia in order to broadcast a suite of four programmes for
different audiences, ranging from a hightly innovative soap opera with business
content for all the family to print-supported courses for practitioners and students of
business. The BBC trained local producers and writers, established an office, agreed
air time, and negotiated print links. It was in these respects fulfilling ju t the kind of
attitude-changing and educational roles that early protagonists of Know How Funding
had been hoping to promote.
A Flexible Fund
Audience assessment was regarded as fundamental to this project, as also was the
development of local competences in market research. But it would be difficult to
measure the int1uence of the broadcasts on business activity and practices in Russia. It
would be even more difficult to attempt any broader evaluation of the impact of
Know How Funding in general on former communist societies. At the time of its
establishment in 1989 the KHF had an underlying political and strategic objective: it
was intended to help ensure the stability and viability of lands in transition and
thereby assist in promoting security in Europe. Yet, only seven years on since the
bringing down of the Berlin Wall, it is far too early to assess the Fund's contribution
to the achievement or non-achievement of such ends. Evidence so far available
permits only a superficial assessment of the extent to which the deployment of the
KHF may have served Britain's more narrowly-defined national interests. This does
21
not, however, exclude the possibility of looking at some of strengths and weaknesses
of KHF. Its administration and conduct have, after all, been internally reviewed on
several occasions, and individual projects have been subjected to rigorous evaluation.
The Fund has been praised for its t1exibility and for the way they have responded
speedily to changing situations. The JAUs have been imaginative in their approach
and have taken ri ks in funding projects which might have found no place in a
conventional aid programme. They have stimulated, adopted and adapted private
sector initiativ , and have been pluralistic in their approach to recipients, preferring
to work with non-governmental organisations and agencies and thereby escaping
some of the limitation a ociated with inter-governmental arrangements. And there is
a case for arguing that the Fund ha h en a good deal more efficient in delivering their
servic than s m multilat ral technical a sistance programmes.
Th KHF ha , how v r, rar ly b en without its critics. In some respects a
diplomatic initiative d ign d to demon trate Britain' commitment to supporting
reform in ast rn Europe, it ha ften app ared underfinanced and understaffed. In its
early day KHF wa innovativ , but, in their eagern s to dishurs funds, officials
were perhap hort-t rmi t in th ir approach and, it has been suggested, more
concern d with n ouraging in titutional, a oppo ed to broader structural, reforms.
There wa , n DA official lat r complain d, a tendency to support ideas that
ound d go d and to put a 1 t f tru tin the analy i of those who proposed projects.
S me f th KH ' hortcoming may al o in part be attribut d to budgetary
limitati n . ompati n b tw n bilat ral aid programme can be problematic. Their
ize v ry often ret1 cts the particular int re t of donor tates: Germany's aid to Russia
ha for in tanc included financial upport for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from
the former GDR. But in the financial year 1991-92 the United Kingdom allocated £10
million to KHF work in th f rmer Soviet Union. In that same year the German
federal gov rnm nt committed $12 billion to as istance to the same region, and
individual German government departments allocated a total of about $180 billion.
The KHF h frequ ntly been about trying to make a very little go a very long way,
22
about maximum glitz and minimum bucks. Even the glitz has sometimes been
missing, as for example when in 1992 the JAUs mved into new accommodation in 24
Whitehall, a rabbit warren of what were then poorly lit and not very well ventilated
rooms of a uniformly depressing character. In the words of one official, its 'dingy
decoration and blotched mirrors gave the entrance the air of a low class brothel' .
The apparent lowliness of the establishment seems not to have deterred the
JAUs' clientele. Indeed, the Fund has maintained a high profile and is now probably
the best known of the Western bilateral aid programmes in central and eastern
Europe. By the autumn of 1995 the two JAUs had a staff of sixty-nine and British
missions aero the region, including central Asia, had home based and local staff
assigned to supporting the development and implementation of KHF programmes.
Over 350 proj cts had been completed or were under way in Russia alone. Health
reform had b en added to the five key sectors upon which the KHF had originally
focused in the former Soviet Union , and recent projects included management
training for nior ho pital doctor in the Sverdlov k obla t and the improvement of
reproductive h alth care for w men in Samara. Since 1991 the KHF-sponsored
Technical Links Scheme has been engaged in supporting technical projects carried out
by individual 1 cal authorities, and by profes ional bodies in local government, with
their oppo it number inc ntral and east rn Europ ; and since 1992 the Department
of the Environment has been funding the Environmental KHF with a view to tackling
the region' nvironmental problem . An emerging voluntary sector was meanwhile
assist d by Charity Know How, a chem initiated in concert with various charitable
tru ts and foundations. There ar , in hort, few areas of civil life uncovered by the
Know How Fund.
'Th Briti h', Profe sor Norman Stone once remarked, 'are very good at
disaster-management- none better'. Communi m ' collapse could hardly be
designated a di ast r. Confusion, cri i and conflict have, however, accompanied the
crumbling of the old order, and the KHF has b en about supporting reform whilst
attempting to att nuate the potentially de tabilising effects of radical change. The
23
process has not truly added to the diplomatic agenda: aid policies have always had
regenerative as well as developmental functions, and the transfer of knowledge and
skills has long figured large in relations between richer and poorer nations. But the
Know How Fund has extended the FCO' s constituency and that of a number of other
government Departments. It has created contacts with a whole range of activities,
bodies and institutions which might once have been judged peripheral to the main
concerns of government. Courses in signalling and telecommunication have been put
on for Polish railway engineers, equipment has been supplied to the Foundation for
Local Democracy at Lodz, and pioneering work has been done on share issues for the
Red October chocolate factory at St Petersburg. In a revolutionary age, diplomats, a
breed frequently criticised for paying too much attention to wining and dining, have
been quick to recognise the importance of improving bread supplie to Moscow and
Kiev. Indeed, while the birth of totalitarian states in the twentieth century did much to
encourage the growth of total diplomacy, their demi e ha m d only to r inforce
the tendency. The Know How Fund has had to addres problem to which there have
been no easy answers, and through the mobili ation of Britain' d m tic r source , it
has contributed to the We t' effort to as i t the tran formati n f a nee
ideologically separate East.
24